4 ms·

It's legally structured as a private company, but it's really not. It's 60% owned by the Swedish state and 40% by the Danish state.

• shaky-carrousel 9mo ago
  Right. Then the accurate description is that it's a state-owned commercial company, not a government agency. Ownership by states doesn't make it a public service. It makes it a company whose shareholders happen to be governments. It still operates under corporate law, not administrative law, and it was explicitly removed from being a state service. Calling that "not really private" is just rhetorical framing, not a legal or operational distinction.
  • cinntaile 9mo ago
    It's not privately owned so it's not really a private company even if it has to abide by the same laws. I don't get why you accuse me of rhetorical framing, it's what the ownership situation looks like.
    • shaky-carrousel 9mo ago
      Fair enough; we're using different definitions of "private." I'm using it in the legal/operational sense relevant to whether a government service was withdrawn (agency vs company, public law vs company law). By that definition, it's a private company. You're using it in a shareholder-ownership sense. That's a valid perspective, but it's a different question than the one being discussed here.